October 06, 2016

Tax Advice Sought

There's been so much attention to the $916 million loss on Donald and Marla Trump's 1995 joint tax return. So much debate about whether it was legit or not legit, smart or not smart.

But what about line 1?

Can someone help me understand how Donald and Marla Trump could have have just $6,108 in wage and salary income for a whole tax year? It has been reported that Trump's casinos paid him a $500,000 salary for 1995. What gives?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Professors at public universities hold a position of trust, and should be very transparent when dealing with the public. After all, how could one accept a law professor at a public university who might be using tax deductions, which, although legal, would deprive our society of teachers, care givers, first responders, and, indeed, thereby intentionally cause the suffering of little children!

In the interest of knowing if any such professors are so depriving our government of necessary revenues and directly harming the most vulnerable and innocent among us, no law professor who is employed by a public university should be permitted to hide their tax returns.

This call for honesty and transparency is directed especially and particularly to the most comfortable zealots among us, whose hypocrisy would be of an especially troubling nature.

Hopefully, upon disclosure, we will learn that they have nothing to hide, and have not taken any deductions!

Simple really. He had a great CPA. He didn't use Block at the Wallyworld booth. Any middle class taxpayer has the same tools at her disposal. For instance, own a small business, deduct auto lease and expenses, and purchase a small investment rental property. Deductions and tax credits my friend. The problem is when Trump does it, it is GREEDY. When a small law firm, struggling Solo or other main street business does it, it "smart." Trump is not smart for doing this.

Is the purpose of your post to slam Trump or do you really want to know the answer to your question? If it's the latter, you might ask one of your tax professor colleagues as there are any number of possible reasons why he reported little wages in that particular tax year, which have nothing to do with deductions and tax credits. It could be that the media reported $500,000 in salary when it should be characterized for tax purposes as a distribution or something else. And if it should be reported as salary for tax purposes, it could be that it was actually received in a different tax year. We could continue speculating but I'm not sure why it even matters. BTW, line 2 appears to show that he reported over $7 million in interest income alone for that tax year. Does that suggest we should or shouldn't vote for him?

There is $3.4 million reported as Schedule C income; there are various income sources totaling a loss of$15k o.k. Schedule E income. The Schedule C would be wholly appropriate for the $500k you're talking about. The Schedule E might be, might not be, wholly appropriate.

This is a joke right? The entire tax code is a total screw up, even the IRS admits this. The rules are subject to various interpretations and is just plain absurd. But it gives accountants and tax lawyers plenty of work. Lets not forget that corps play all sorts of tax games domicili g in low tax jurisdictions. Trump has wvery right to use whatever legal means available to save. We all do.

"Let me explain; no there is too much. Let me sum up," as Inigo Montoyia said in the Princess Bride (celebrating its 30th anniversary next year). One person's use of the term "salary" could mean many things other than a line 1 "Wages, salaries...." In addition to that already stated it could also be a "guaranteed payment" from a partnership that is reported on Schedule E (line 11 not shown). It could be a distribution of capital that would not appear on the 1040, although the income from the entity could appear on Schedule C (line 6 not shown), or line E. We do not have enough information to answer the question.

Leona Helmsely said it best: "Taxes are for the little people." The problem with her is that she got greedy. I know this is cliché, but it is applicable. A pig gets fat and a hog gets slaughtered. Like everything else, its about balance, discretion and good judgment.

Thanks, I am always sagacious and well spoken. I am a lawyer, after all. Another simple answer to this hugely complex question. On a cold, dreary New Years Eve when wage slaves and pay check employees are partying or with loved ones, go to any Staples, or Office Max/Depot. One will notice tons of shoppers----no, they are not there to return a Holiday (oops, Christmas) candy pen set or pick up a protractor. They are the self-employed, free lancers, 1099 contractors and solo practitioners like me seeking last second DEDUCTABLE business expenses. As long as it says "OFFICE" on the receipt, it goes into the receipt bag as proof (for the approaching October 15 real filing deadline) for the IRS. The Agent can't DISALLOW my business related deduction, it's from an Office store, of course.

Quotes from Learned Hand (I'm surprised these haven't been trotted out already):

Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.
Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947) - dissenting opinion